Same as now (when its already useless) - just posting in a forum. LinC for instance.As if you had not posted a ton of replies to various topics and been banned or close to that.If
only you have had raised your concerns in the same tone, I am sure many
of the investors would have changed their minds. But you have not.Your
post might have been deleted by Paul - but surely some people could
have read it beforehand. Then that would have been a proof of something
fishy was going on.

So no need to rave about megaphones when you were silent like fried fish. However posting in this triumphant tone now is good for what?

Same as now (when its already useless) - just posting in a forum. LinC for instance.As if you had not posted a ton of replies to various topics and been banned or close to that.If
only you have had raised your concerns in the same tone, I am sure many
of the investors would have changed their minds. But you have not.Your
post might have been deleted by Paul - but surely some people could
have read it beforehand. Then that would have been a proof of something
fishy was going on.

So no need to rave about megaphones when you were silent like fried fish. However posting in this triumphant tone now is good for what?

Wait,
I seem to recall that several people questioned the validity of several
scams on LinC, but more people came to the defense of the scammers. The
ones wanting to invest have blinders on and will do anything to justify
what they want to do. I don't know the motives for the defenders of the
obvious, yet they give validity to what is obvious a scam.Maybe a
few have learned a valuable lesson, but I doubt it. The world is full of
fish and plenty of lowlifes willing to hook them.

Not sure who
was deleting what, but anyone that did Paul's dirty work can be
considered complicit to his activities. You had to be very naive to
think Paul was some upstanding, trustworthy individual. All the warning
signs were there from day one, it is just some preferred to ignore them.

A bad attitude is like a flat tire. If you don\'t change it, you\'ll never go anywhere.

Q. What are the different investment programs that you and Bill have been operating for forum members?

A. Salary Loans and Expense Allowance.

This is not factual, to phrase it subtle. There were loans for certain
shoe factories which were the 1st non-paying clients. Bill gave them
loans despite some quite loud opposition in LinC GEL.No shoe factory
loans have been told to the investors in the beginning, only the above
mentioned salary and expense loans secured by ATM card collateral. I
will post Bill and Paul's email regarding this.

........

Q. How was the business split up last October?

A.
Some investors were paid off through Paul and they could continue
investing if they wanted to. Paul had to sign for the money given to
him to pay off investors but I have no way of knowing if all were paid
as agreed. Two investors contacted me and said they wanted their
investment back and I told them that I already gave their investment to
Paul. I don’t know if the issue was resolved.

This is not factual. I know of two investors who contacted Bill and
Julie in October, one of which was me. I have not been told that my
investment was back to Paul, I was told that the money was with the
non-payer borrowers.

Q. Can investors get their money back now or do they need to wait?

A.
I haven’t been posting in the forum because Bill was doing that
and because of his death. Very soon I’m going to post in the investor’s
forum named GEL and make a proposal. I will propose to pay out 50% to
each investor and then make another pay out later.

Stinks
like some small investors will get some money back to keep their mouth
shut. How could those with higher amount expect anything from a bank
account with only 20.000 in it?

Q. When will you have enough money to do a 50% pay out?

A.
The borrowers agreed in writing that we would receive their
December bonuses which would have been about 1.5 million but it didn’t
happen. .....

And nothing else has happened. But if there is a written agreement, its very easy to start a legal action.

Q.
Paul told me and others that the payments would be taken out of
the borrowers pay before they received it and deposited into an account.
Are you saying that you have to personally collect it?

A.
There’s nothing like that in the Philippines were money is taken
out of pay before the employee is paid. Employees are paid on the 15th
and 30th of every month. I must be there to collect the money. I usually
go to the collection area on Mon, Tue, Thru and Fri. of each week.

The initial story was about ATM cards as collateral.

Q. How many borrowers are late on payments.

A.
Since I wasn’t there to collect for a long time there are a lot
late. We have 75 borrowers with 100 loans. Some have 2 loans. 25 are
current so 50 are late. They haven’t seen me so they haven’t been
paying. Some have been late for a long time so I gave them a collection
letter saying I will file a case in small claims court if they don’t pay
in 10 days. It costs 2,000 to file against each person in small claims
court but I believe they will start paying now without filing a case.

This fairy tale was told already in October, nothing has ever happened. No small claims court, no nothing.

Q. Do you know if any investors money is unaccounted for?

A.
Bill was a very honest person. I’m sure he didn’t do anything
dishonest. We initially had 27 investors. We paid off 20 investors and
only have 7 now. All the money we have is in two accounts. Two investors
asked for their money and I told them I already gave it to Paul. That’s
the only thing I know about.

A number of things are not factual here and something strange which I was unaware of until now.

Surely
there were at least three investors asking their money back, as I also
asked my money back, never received, however Julie never told me that my
money was with Paul.

If they paid off 20 investors, why they
kept the two biggest investors for last? Look at the numbers. It was
about 2 million initially and now we are looking for 1.7 million. So by
paying out the majority of the investors, the majority of the dough
still remain in. Just like in a ponzi scheme. To have testimonials on
how good the Sh$t they offer is.

Regarding how honest Bill was, I will post some email communication from him, then any reader can decide for himself.

......February 22 Meeting with Julie at her home. Looking at her book.

Julie
- Here are the names of the 27 initial investors. Here are the 7
investors we have now. 20 investors were paid off. Of the 7 investors we
have now I only know the screen name of two. Five I don’t know
their screen names. Do you know which one is Kahuna?

Me – No, I don’t know his real name.

Julie – Do you know who Locktite is?

Me – No, I don’t know his name either. Out of those seven I only know one person.

Not
factual, she knows me and one more investor at least, as we were there
in their house together not even once, plus I met Julie in the Carcar
municipio and in the hospital in Bill's room, too. So its at least two.

I really believe Bill and Julie have been honest and did the best they could with the loans and making pay outs.

Except
for the ATM card story, the story about the Xmas collection supported
by some big heads in the municipio and the shoe factory loan that has
been made without having the investors agreed in it. Not to forget the
proposed 5% monthly earnings that has never reached even 3%. Maybe more
to come.

The only questions in my mind are:

1.
Did Paul turn over all invested money to Bill and Julie?
Only Paul knows the answer to that question without father
investigation which involves all of the investors.

2. When
pay outs were made and Paul signed for the money, did he return all of
the money to the investors? Only Paul knows the answer to that
question without father investigation which involves all of the
investors.

The 20
investors who received their monies were fully paid, including the
lousy interest. Part of my investment has been paid back some time last
year, including some small interest.

3. Is the
money still in the bank account that only Bill and Paul had access to?
I guess we will know in May when Paul returns.

The money we are trying to find is not in that account. Its 1.7 million vs 60k in the accounts.

Same as now (when its already useless) - just posting in a forum. LinC for instance.As if you had not posted a ton of replies to various topics and been banned or close to that[/b]

I
did post on the LinC forum about it. The post was deleted in short
order by maybe Paul, or maybe an ally of Paul. I don't know.

what
I do know is that Paul had and probably still has respect for me, and
knew beyond any doubt that I would never invest in this scheme. He never
even asked me. He knew I'd just snort in derision.

I saw you
giving a lift to Paul from Moalboal to Carcar in your smart car you
probably can't afford any more. He wouldn't even have paid you for the
gas.

I on the other hand have never given a moments' hospitality
to the man in my life and nor would want to even though today I would
count him as more of a friend to me than you are to him. See the
difference? You can always say no.

you didn't see the difference and that's why you got took to the cleaners.

Jr.
is in trouble in Texas not Georgia and its not a rumor. Attached
is his Warrant of Arrest. It doesn't say Jr. but it can't be Sr. The
date of birth, age, and weight can only be Woody Paul Petrea Jr.The
funny part to me is it says Evading Arrest. What is the saying, "Like
Father Like Son". Or the other one, "Following in His Father's
Foot Steps."

Americano, Paul's son is not the
subject on this forum, therefore wondering what this screenshot does
here. Maybe you should work harder to secure one for Paul in the
PH, don't you think?

To
the moderators. Am I banned of posting attachments? No, is not Paul's
son warrant of arrest. This went through! It's some thing much more
important and related to the subject. So please, find it and post it!. I spent a lot of time to edit it for viewing in the forum! I'll try again

This forum is looking like LinC part 2.Do
you think that if anyone sounded the alarm on a pending scam on LinC,
that it would not go unchallenged and all the "feel good boys" that
supported every scammer on LinC would tell you that you are wrong.

Go back and read the scam KC8UAL pulled on a few of the readers on LinC. He didn't get much, but maybe your pride.I
seem to recall maybe 2 people telling everyone that what Nick wanted to
do was near impossible. You were warned as gently as possible, because
if they came out and told everyone it was a scam, it would be deleted
and the poster banned.So many came to Nick's defense (many now here on this forum) that it boggled my mind how they could be so naive. I guess you guys have lead a sheltered life to get sucked into these things. It is classic SCAM 101.

Offer
something too good to be true, make it seem like you will be left out
if you don't participate, get people to vouch for you (which many said
Nick was good for what he promised), get the money, then start making
excuses why things went wrong, and finally the "investors" do not have
their money, and the scammer is enjoying life on your dime.

If
you guys need hand-holding with every aspect of your life, and feel the
need to ask some of the most ridiculous questions, and then expect
serious answers on some forum that has misfits, drunks, and who knows
what else, then I guess you get what is the obvious.

Harrell,
thanks for doing the great job, let me now complete it, sit back and
relax, get a little laugh reading the numbers.

I will not
share Americano's and Julie's statements that Bill Aragoni "was an
honest person" . History tells us other wise: That it was a setup
of two felons, one as we know him here in the PH. there is
no need to further introduce him. The other one, Aragoni, as
discreet and low profile he chose to remain, that's a luxury now
(internet) days. Click here to see it yourself.http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1178999.htmland here look for item#10http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/898/147/69498/Less talk and straight to the point: Aragoni, in one of his rare post on LIC forum said this:See attachment What
was the name of his business? Didn't Julie say anything to Americano?
Was this business registered with the BIR? She Should know this because
if it was, will be in her name as Bill was a foreigner living on a
purchased BB visa, like anybody else in the LIC forum who had not a ACR
card.Below, is a screenshot of a spreadsheet that Paul made public
for a few hours before retrieve it.The reason he did that is irrelevant -
at least for now- I erased any information pertaining to the investors'
ID with the exception of two that came publicly and acknowledged their
participation on the "program" Bob Ward did it here yesterday, Jim
Sibbick in the LIC forum. Other names you see on the bottom on the sheet
have been published already as irrelevant, because they did not invest,
at least as per Dec. 23. 2010.

Now, you want your money back?
There is only one way. File charges for estafa against Paul Petrea and
Julie. It's a very serious offense in the PH and I think no bailable. I
think. Your chances to win the case? 100%. The whole scam is captured on
the LIC forum, some of you have evidence, no need really much, is a
straight forward case. Winning a case, doesn't mean you will recover
the money. But in this case, Julie will be forced to disclose
everything she knows, something that now does only what Paul is
instructing her to do or say. But you have to go fast. Paul needs much
more money now than before to cover his hiding expenses. He needs more
bribing capital than ever before. Because Paul is in the Philippines Julie having the sword of Damocles on her head will tell you where the rest of the money is. Do not settle for promises. File charges first and negotiate later.

Does make you wonder how he left the country for his annual leave?[/b]

don't
you even know that hundreds if not thousands of expats never take any
'annual leave'. They just arrange for some bent official in the BoI to
stamp their passport for another year. It costs anywhere between 10,000
and 20,000 pesos to pay them.

it doesn't have to take place in
any BoI office. The Mcdonalds upstairs in Divisoria in CDO is a favorite
location. There can be quite a queue of foreigners' wives and
girlfriends waiting there with their meal-ticket's passports and the
money to pay for the stamp because of course the old fool is too old or
too sick to even walk too far, never mind go to the trouble of getting
to Cebu or Manila and flying out of the country for a couple of days. I
know one guy who hasn't left the Philippines for five years and hasn't
even left Camiguin for three. He just gets his wife to get on the ferry
and shell out 15,000 for an annual stamp to some bent official who works
at the CDO BoI. I would be ready to bet that Paul was doing something
like that and thus had no need to leave the country for years at a
stretch like many others.

Tourist Visa can be renewed LEGALLY for TWO years & even beyond

I have been asked by a member in a PM, how you can do this. I thought I would pass it on here for all too:

What is the maximum extension of stay that can be granted?Foreigners
holding temporary visitors visa pursuant to Philippine Immigration Act
of 1940 and aliens admitted under E.O. 408 may extend their stay in the
Philippines every 2 months for a total stay of 16 months. Extension of
stay after16 months, up to 24 months need the approval of the Chief of
the Immigration Regulation Division. Extension of stay after 24 months
need the approval of the Commissioner. (MCL Memorandum dated 31 July
2007)

The important bit being that the Commissioner can extend BEYOND 24 months.

I
agree there are ways round the system but when Paul had that vehicle
accident involving a motorbike the discussions at the time were that he
had told others his visa hadn't been renewed for 2 years.

But
don't quote 24 months otherwise people start to assume they can just
wander into immigration and ask for it. If people are willing to put the
effort in to contact the Commissioner or people like Mr Abellion I am
sure you can work almost anything out with immigration "legally". At the
same time everytime I have heard about Paul and immigration its not
been because he's had a perfect visa record.

Now as regards
rubber stamping, anyone seen any deportations with people having visas
upto date? Or aware of anyone who was getting such services rendered
with extra stamps for being here? Because part of that problem is there
is no exit and entry showing on the passport. No doubt immigration
wouldn't bother you unless you were bothering them in some way. But does
leave someone rather open to exploitation.Regarding the lending
business its probably that the majority of money is still out according
to the last message from Americano (Not including what Paul seems to
have received). If that is the case its going to be extremely difficult
to recoup it after people have been getting away with not paying it for a
period of time. The number of people that go bad gets higher the longer
the debt stands, people who refuse to pay as well that realise that
your not going to sue, your not going to send baliff's to the house then
also increases.

It does appear that Bill's widow is an innocent
party in this mind and to be honest never heard her mentioned as
anything but that. Chances of recouping the money if there is only
literally 10s of thousands in the business is literally down to years as
it would need churning to recoup not removing funds from it. At the
same time analyzing the number of loans outstanding and who owes them
you may be able to sell the job lot to a collector on a commission basis
but your looking at losing at least 10% of the job lot if not more for
recovery.

Problem is though as it appears most people involved
were silent investors there is nobody to do any of this as Bill was
operating the financial side himself (apparently, haven't heard
different in regards collections).

What could have happened though is this scenario which is extremely common in lending in the Philippines.

You
lend out your money and get an increasing number of interest while at
the same time the loan amounts continue to increase(This is why most
people seem happy in the first 6 months of setting up these types of
operations). After 6 months you start to see a failing rate at possibly
20% of clients and it starts to increase in number as more and more
people become aware your not going to sue them or repossess assets. This
would see a business go from profit to loss literally within a couple
of months once it starts happening.

Now the question is this
though if Paul was just an investor as he says but was responsible for
giving back the money Bill recouped before his death did Paul get his
own money back first completely instead of giving % back to everyone?

The
ATM cards aren't important at this stage anymore as simply people would
have been going hungry due to having no money if they did still hold
peoples cards! Also you can order a replacement card as stolen/lost. The
bank cards weren't important at all in the operation. Why lending
companies use banks is a different reason not bank cards.

I
agree there are ways round the system but when Paul had that vehicle
accident involving a motorbike the discussions at the time were that he
had told others his visa hadn't been renewed for 2 years.

But
don't quote 24 months otherwise people start to assume they can just
wander into immigration and ask for it. If people are willing to put the
effort in to contact the Commissioner or people like Mr Abellion I am
sure you can work almost anything out with immigration "legally". At the
same time everytime I have heard about Paul and immigration its not
been because he's had a perfect visa record.

I
don't understand this response. :huh: I gave it in reply to the post
that said that anyone on a Tourist visa had to leave every 12 months -
NOT TRUE you can renew for 16 months. Extending to 24 months can be done
LEGALLY (it is on the BI website) by writing a letter asking for it. I
know of at least 2 people who have done this & beyond - one in CDO
& one in North Luzon. Nothing dodgy or underhand or semi legal.

I am NOT saying this applies to Paul, so separate the two in that respect.

[/color][/size][/color][/size][/u]One mustnt lose sight of the facts :1.
Paul actively solicited funds from Linc members based on his
credibility, and based on his assurances that because of the types of
loans the money was pretty much guaranteed.2.Paul advised people
that he had a partner Bill, who was a banking expert, thus giving more
credence to his request for investors3. Paul and Bill both failed to
protect the monies which they had been entrusted with and said that
they had given the matter over to Bill's wife . This was done not only
w/o the investors consent but it seems also w/o the investors knowledge .
Loans were not provided by the investors based on the representations
made by Julie- but rather by the representations made by Paul and Bill4.
When asked for information regarding the loan and both Paul and Bill
either failed to respond to people or did so in an inadequate manner, so
that it became impossible for the investors to know what was going on .
This was in direct conflict to the agreement by which the investors put
their monies in trust with Paul an Bill. Some people have been asking
about their loans for over 10 months and both Paul and Bill refused to
provide such information- 5 Julie took on the job of collecting the
payments due but failed to do so . Instead she just let the borrowers go
months and months without any attempt to collect the loans at all, this
giving the borrowers the impression that there was no need to repay the
monies.6. Now that the investors want their 1.7 M plus
interest paid Paul has refused to accept responsibilty by trying to say
that he had nothing to do with the loans, and that it was all up to Bill
[ and of course leaving Julie in the hot seat]7. Even though he
knows that there is a huge amount of controversy regarding the loans
Paul refuses to give any information, saying how he is busy elsewhere ,
although at the same time continues to post on other things every day on
Linc. In other words Paul is refusing to provide adequate answers
to the people that he solicited funds from, and which he held in trust
for them. Some comparisons can be drawn between this case and
Paul and Bill's case - especially if one decides to pursue this matter
by way of criminal case [ estafa in the Philippines]

Before
SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HIRAM H. WARD, Senior United
States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting
by designation.

PER CURIAM:

1Sterling Fores and Brian Keith appeal their convictions of conspiracy to defraud a bank under
18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344. Appellants
challenge a number of rulings made by the district court during the
jury trial. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

I.

2In
November 1988 appellant Keith, presenting a fabricated contract with
the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, obtained a
loan from Heritage Bank. Within the fabricated document appeared the
name of appellant Fores, whom Keith described as his contact in the
Department of Employment Services. William Aragoni,a
Heritage Bank loan officer, verified through Fores that the contract
was valid and that payment under the contract would be due in January.
In actuality, however, Keith never had a contract with the District of
Columbia government; the document he presented to Aragoni was an altered
contract between the Department of Employment Services and the
Washington Institute for Employee Training. Nevertheless, relying on
appellants' misrepresentations, Aragoni authorized a loan to Keith of
$45,000.00.

3Keith failed to repay the loan when it
came due and, after making further misrepresentations, obtained an
extension until April 1, 1986. When
the loan remained unpaid in April, Aragoni could not locate Keith.
Thereafter, Aragoni called the Department of Employee Services, but
Fores was unavailable, and no one there could confirm the existence of
the fabricated contract. Keith never repaid Heritage Bank.

II.

4Appellants
first assert that the government's evidence that Heritage Bank was
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an essential
element as well as a jurisdictional prerequisite of both offenses, was
insufficient to support the jury's verdicts of guilty. The trial
transcript reflects testimony of a bank officer that Heritage Bank was
FDIC insured in 1985 and 1987.* Appellants contend that since this
witness did not work for the bank at the time during which the offenses
were committed, he was incompetent to testify regarding the insured
status of the bank, and that the evidence of FDIC insurance was
insufficient to support the guilty verdicts. Although the most
appropriate method of establishing FDIC insured status is to introduce
the certificate of insurance for the relevant time period, we hold that
the government's evidence of FDIC insurance in this case was sufficient
to support the verdicts of guilty.

5In United States v.
Safely, 408 F.2d 603 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct.
2147, 23 L.Ed.2d 772 (1969), defendants challenged their bank robbery
convictions on grounds that the evidence of FDIC insurance was
insufficient. At that trial, a bank employee testified that the deposits
"are" FDIC insured. Defendants contended that the testimony could have
referred to the time of the offense or the time of trial. However, the
district judge instructed the jury that it was for them to decide
whether the employee referred to the date of the robbery or some other
time. On appeal, this Court determined that the evidence of insurance,
viewed in the context of all the evidence, was sufficient, since the "jury could draw the reasonable inference that the bank was insured at the time of the robbery." Safely, 403 F.2d at 605.

6In
a more recent case, United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2858, 101 L.Ed.2d 895 (1988),
this Court addressed similar facts and held that testimony from a bank
officer that the bank holding company "and its subsidiaries," which
included the victim bank, were FDIC insured was sufficient to establish
the existence of FDIC insurance for purposes of establishing federal
jurisdiction. Id. at 111-12. This Court, citing numerous cases from
other circuits, stated that a certificate of FDIC insurance is not a
sine qua non of proof of jurisdiction. Id. at 112. Accordingly,
we hold that the testimony of the Heritage Bank officer, although
somewhat meager evidence, was sufficient to allow the jury to draw the
reasonable inference that Heritage Bank was FDIC insured at the time of
the offenses charged in the indictment.

7Appellants
next assign as error the district court's admission into evidence of
appellants' other loan applications under Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b). Appellants contend that the probative value of the evidence was
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice since the sole purpose of
the evidence was to show criminal disposition. "The trial court has
broad discretion in ruling on questions of relevancy and in balancing
the probative value of relevant evidence against any undue prejudice."
United States v. Zandi, 769 F.2d 229, 237 (4th Cir.1985). We
find no abuse of discretion in the court's admission of evidence of the
other loan applications and its instruction to the jury to consider them
only to show that appellants acted intentionally and not because of
mistake, accident, or other reason.

8Appellants
further assign as error the district court's failure to admit
statements in a business record which amounted to hearsay within
hearsay. Appellants sought the admission of an inter-office memorandum
containing hearsay statements of an employee of the Department of
Employment Services and Mr. Aragoni. Appellants assert that the
statements of the employee were not offered to prove the truth of the
matters asserted, and that Aragoni's statements fell within the state of
mind exception to the hearsay rule. Because it appears that the
employee's statements regarded an earlier contract proposal and not the
fraudulent contract used as collateral for the loan in this offense, and
because a lender's state of mind is totally irrelevant in a prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344, we find no reversible error in the district
judge's refusal to admit the statements. See United States v.
Swearingen, 858 F.2d 1555, 1558 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S.
----, 109 S.Ct. 1540, 103 L.Ed.2d 844 (1989).

9We further
find no error in the Court's determination that the misrepresentations
made by appellants in obtaining the fraudulent loans were material as a
matter of law, nor in the Court's decision to admit checks written by
one conspirator to another as evidence of payment for criminal activity.
Finally, discerning no prejudice to appellants, we find no merit in
their contention that the district court abused its discretion by
denying their motions for severed trials.

10Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is

11AFFIRMED.

* The
acts constituting the charged offenses occurred in 1985 and 1986. The
government contends that the trial testimony actually regarded the years
1985 and 1986, and that the transcript incorrectly cites the years 1985
and 1987

I
have been following this with interest because I was also offered to
invest in this scheme (scam!) by Paul, but one look at it and I
declined, fortunately because he was very convincing. Regards what has
happened since, it is pretty obvious that the 'fat rat is in charge of
the cheese' and may be still munching on it!!!Also I don't think
it's fair or justifiable to place any responsibility on Julie, she
wasn't the one who made the offer or was operating this scam. I
don't know her but it appears that she wasn't even married to the late
Bill